This fine article from the racist and poorly written AmericanThinker.com explains a concept of which I’ve made similar concepts on various blogs, including this one. If one is honest, one can easily see how the stifling of religion in the public square has contributed to what the late Sen. Patrick Moynihan called, “defining deviancy down”. Two recent incidents made the reading of this article all the more compelling.

The first was the receipt of a solicitation for donation to an outfit that is both pro-life and a promoter of chastity. (It seems the wife already discarded this into the recycling container and at this late hour I’m not up for digging it out. I’ll update this post later if I can recover it. It’s a most worthy cause.) In it’s letter it described a behavior amongst teens called “sexting” wherein the kids take pix of themselves naked for attracting dates or just for exchange. It speaks of teens, particularly college girls, turning to prostitution as if it’s just another job. It also speaks of statistics such as 1 in 4 kids having some form of VD.

The second was a piece I just saw on a news station speaking of a hazing incident involving girls from Glenbard North High School in the Chicago suburbs. It had to do with some kind of sports team wherein senior girls engaged in a very brutal and savage assault on junior girls. There was a keg of beer and eventually other students showed up, and kids being stupid, some video-taped the event. About a dozen senior girls were expelled, some junior girls suspended and several girls were taken to the hospital for serious injuries including a broken ankle, a severe gash on the head from being hit with a bucket, and other assorted fun. To view the tape was sickening.

I maintain and insist that the stifling of religion within the schools and in the public arena, but worst of all, within the homes of most of these kids, is at the heart of all of it. There has been nothing that has adequately replaced God in the lives of these kids and their parents. Is it any wonder that our culture is so warped? No one’s looking for a theocracy here, but those who insist that it is soley up to the parents alone are generally those whose kids indulge in these behaviors, and often indulge in them themselves. Our country can no longer afford this crap. Everyone needs to grow up.

UPDATE:This article from Yahoo is relevant to this discussion. It speaks of Mississippi taking over as the state with the most teen births. It mentions all versions of why a rise in teen births has occurred and why it might be more in one state than the other. But the reason of culture is given only a mere mention. Of course culture is a far larger reason because it made it OK for these kids to have sex in the first place. I would have preferred that the article spoke to pregnancy rather than births, for I feel the stats would be more alarming. Also better would be some kind of national survey that indicates how many kids are engaging in any kind of sexual activity beyond mere kissin’ and huggin’. That, too, would likely surprise.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Knowing right from wrong all depends on perspective, Marshall. I have never claimed that we liberals are more moral, or have more or better knowledge. What I do claim is that, from a perspective of social coercion, I see no benefit from enforcing certain mores, sexual or otherwise, by force of law or otherwise. THese have been done in the past and found wanting, which is the main reason they have been superseded. Not because we liberals are either morally better, or because our view of things is somehow better or more moral or anything else. The entire point of those who are arguing against you in this thread – to be presumptuous for a moment – is not that we are more moral, or you are less. Rather, it is that the point you are making – enforcing some kind of moral code, no matter how much it may have to recommend it, through the force of law, or whatever other mechanism you may be offering, has not worked in the past, so there is no reason to think that it will work in either the present or the future.This is where you go wrong every time. You impute motives none of us have; you argue with those who agree with your basic point – those teen girls behaved badly, it would be far better if there were some mechanism beyond merely punishing them for breaking the law to prevent such an occurrence, etc., etc. – while we are merely niggling over the way you are saying such things could be prevented. That you also claim, despite your statements to the contrary, that such things were either rare or nonexistent in the past when there was a larger social and cultural acceptance of a certain, to my own view, narrow understanding of morality, is simply untrue, because other private and social ills existed, as well as the pervasive existence of all sorts of social ills with which we continue to live.None of us are wiser; some of us have access to more information, or integrate it in different ways, but I for one would never claim that my position is inherently better. I disagree with both your premises and conclusions; so what? You disagree with mine. THat’s what argument is about. I happen to think that my own position has more factual evidence, from history as well as other sources, on its side. You disagree. These are things societies have always argued about, and will continue to argue about.

I often wonder about reports of middle school students being sexual. Apart from the fact that these reports arise from dubious sources, and the anecdotes that seem to support them tend to be false upon even a cursory examination, I just wonder. Since I have a daughter in middle school, I do believe I have a certain interest in this issue, quite apart from being a concerned citizen. I do not like the use of loaded words like “whore”, “slut”, etc., because such terms are used to describe all sorts of behaviors. You might think a person a whore or slut, and I might not, based on all sorts of factors. To my mind, some women embracing these terms is a bit like African-Americans appropriating first “black”, then calling one another “man” (to counter the pervasive use of “boy”), then, in the 1970’s, taking up the “n”-word to counter its derogatory use. Some girls may just use the term to rob it of its moral force, that’s all.

Dan,For you second to last comment, your “correction” actually supports the point with which you disagree. And your call to celebrate what you think is progress falls a bit short since some of what you call progress I don’t consider to be so. You seem to assume I don’t celebrate progress when we’d have to go one by one and debate whether a point is progress or not. Maybe another time.Your last comment suggests that evil is only that which is associated with violent behavior. From past discussions, you’ve certainly shown that you lean toward equating violence with evil. I do not. I prefer no violence, but violent action is often called for to defend against evil. Violence is not required for evil to flourish. Not required in the least.

Marshall said:For you second to last comment, your “correction” actually supports the point with which you disagree.What?? And your call to celebrate what you think is progress falls a bit short since some of what you call progress I don’t consider to be so.You don’t think tremendous progress has been made in terms of race relations? You don’t think there is a significant improvement in the rights of minorities? You don’t think women’s rights have progressed significantly? Even on homosexuality issues, you don’t think things have significantly improved for our LGBT friends in that they don’t have to worry as much about being beaten up, killed, harassed?If that is the case, I guess my earlier assessment was correct: You are truly out of touch with reality in regards to history and human rights. Not that I believe in reincarnation, but: May you come back in your next life as a lesbian black woman in 1945.Peace.

Geoffrey,Regarding your secong to last comment:Nowhere in either the post nor in the comments afterwards, have I suggested legislating anything. Indeed the point, that which so often seems to elude you, was that law is unnecessary for a moral people.”What I do claim is that, from a perspective of social coercion, I see no benefit from enforcing certain mores, sexual or otherwise, by force of law or otherwise.”Then you are a blind man. It happens all the time, for good, ill, and something difficult to put into either class. Have you never heard of “peer pressure”? This influences bad behavior, but can also influence good behavior as it used to regarding sexuality before the 1960s. That was more of a societal pressure and it lost its value when some jerkoffs, like Hugh Hefner, decided that sex should have fewer, if any, limitations. Sexual purity is now a joke and as I have said, virginity is far less common than in times past. Now if you wish to contend that some displayed a warped notion of purity, such as those who look upon sex only as sinful, you’ll get little argument from me there. But that’s not the same as then saying that NO sex is sinful and it is only a “wonderful gift from God”. This attitude I’ll say once more, is the cause of much misery that was once far less common. This is indisputable. In addition, I can’t believe you don’t favor constant support for better behavior, whatever you consider that to be. Though I’m sure it doesn’t match my notions of it, to say that it has no benefit is totally goofy. How do you raise your kids without it? How does the Mrs preach to her flock without it? How do we dare hope for a better society without it? To say we disagree on the exact meaning of good behavior is one thing. To say constant preaching in favor of it has no benefit is irresponsible, immature, an attitude no Christian, liberal or conservative, should find acceptable.

Regarding your last comment, Geoffrey:”I often wonder about reports of middle school students being sexual. Apart from the fact that these reports arise from dubious sources…” You mean like the Health Dept? “…and the anecdotes that seem to support them tend to be false upon even a cursory examination…” Such as?In my job, the one I had, that is, I had regular visits to two middle schools. I can plainly see the way young girls dress. It would be helpful to remember that one school, or even the two I visit I’ll admit, is not representative of the total. There’s no way I could say with certainty if any of the kids I see engage in sexual behaviors. Nor could I say who doesn’t. I can say that my daughter is not allowed to dress as some of them do, and as I stated earlier, my daughter’s school has a code to prevent it. Why is that code necessary? Obviously the school officials know that it is likely that some girls would dress in that fashion. Goes to the point of the article and my post: if they had a better sense of morality, they’d willingly dress in a more modest fashion. Since they don’t, a law was created to ensure they do. Checkmate. You do not like the use of loaded words. Great. Muddy the issue. Removing the use of these words makes it more difficult to get across the points regarding sexual purity and morality. It’s a “rose by any other name” situation and I don’t play that game. It’s goodness and purity and holiness I’m after for the next generation, not ambiguity and “MY truth” crap.You’re kidding yourself if you think women adopting the term “slut” is to lessen the word’s impact. It’s done to celebrate their “sexual freedom” and lack of inhibition for engaging in sexual promiscuity. Some people thinks its good to be bad. This is an example of it.

Marshall,First, let me say that you have been most impressive in thoughtfully addressing many long and complicated arguments from multiple people. Kudos. Your patience is admirable.Confronting the kid about his error was the cause of the lie about my son's homosexuality, so yes, my son confronted him.As for me trying to teach the boy proper interpretation of scripture, or giving him any moral instruction, that is not my place, especially as an apostate. Can you imagine what you would do if you found out that a non-Christian neighbor was teaching your child Biblical interpretation contrary to what you believe?Plus, the mom is a cop, and also very influential in the schools, so even if I were to go against my feelings of right and wrong on the matter (not to teach Biblical interpretation to other people's kids when I dont believe the Bible…though I studied it avidly for years) it would be a socially very stupid thing to do.About the homosexuality rumor, I did confront the mother and she just bald-faced said that my son was lying. Shes still my neighbor, so I still loan her a cup of sugar and watch her house when she is out of town…or pick her son up from school if they are unable to give him a ride (it can be a life-and-limb matter here in Minnesota)but let's just say she doesn't get invited to parties.:-) I feel I should forgive, but I don't feel obligated to be chummy.I feel that you argument that God has been taken out of the public square is flase and unsupportable, because there are many places that still have manditory prayer at school functions. There are uncountable instances of Christian prayers and invocations at government functions every day in this country. Public officials feel it necessary to proclaim their allegiance to these values in order to get elected.And I find it false to claim that "Thou shall not kill" is a value particular to Christianity. Every civilization we know of has had a prohibition against murder. It is a human social value of obvious benefit to society. In fact, Ben Franklin himself expressed a desire for a secular code of morality based on reason and natural law, which he felt would be an improvement upon Christian morality as it was practiced at the time.I'll hunt down the link…wait, I think I have something in a rough draft of a blog post I never posted…Here's a link to a blog post with lots of link you can follow from there:http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/thug-and-intimidation-tactics-of-far.htmlHere's another link.The family's name is Dobrich if you wish to google them, if you do not like my sources. They are just ones I was able to get quickly. There are LOTS of posts and news items about them.Its a little long, so if you don't want to take the time to read it all the way through, here is the relevant part:This week, Bartholomew's Official Notes on Religion reported on the new "project" implemented by the group StopTheACLU.org. As that group describes it, the project is called "Expose the ACLU Plaintiffs," and promises to publish the home addresses of all individuals who are "using the ACLU" in any First Amendment lawsuit based on the Establishment clause which challenges the constitutionality of governmental promotion of Christianity. The first such enemy targeted for this treatment is a Jewish family in Delaware who sued their local school district over its alleged promotion of Christianity in the public schools. StopTheACLU published their home address and telephone number on its website, and the family — due to all sorts of recriminations and fear of escalating attacks — was forced to leave their home and move to another town, which was one of the apparent goals of StopTheACLU in publishing their home address.Stop the ACLU is not some fringe, isolated group. To the contrary, the "official blog" of StopTheACLU.org is StopTheACLU.com (h/t Hunter), a very prominent player in the right-wing blogosphere. That blog is the 14th most-linked-to blog on the Internet, and is often promoted and approvingly cited to as a source by numerous right-wing bloggers such as Instapundit and Michelle Malkin. The blog Expose the Left (which aspires to be the C&L of the Right), yesterday condemned the "nutcases on the left side of the blososphere" who "are sending unfounded attacks" against StopTheACLU for this plainly despicable thug behavior.

About sexuality in the schools. I’m not trying to prove any point here, except that teenage sexuality in this generation is puzzeling.My son reports that children thought to have engaged in sexual activity beyond kissing/hugging are socially ostracised and ridiculed.He specifically called it “social death”. 🙂 But my son has been invited to several all-night co-ed parties…something that people from my age-group would consider to be immoral in and of itself….boys and girls spending all night in the same house. Even with the kids heavily supervised, which they are. I let him go to them, but he did not get to stay the night…I picked him up at what I considered to be an appropriate hour and brought him home…with the exception of one party that had a definite bed-time with kids seperated by gender in different rooms on different floors with multiple adults of appropriate gender staying in each room. That seemed a lot like summer camp to me. :-)So I guess it depends on what you call morality. The kids in our area get comprehensive (or, as conservatives call it “explicit”) sex education. The kids around here consider it unacceptable to have sex, to the point where it is called “social death” to do it…but they do all sorts of things that people in our age group would assume are sexual in nature, like wearing short skirts, caking on the make-up (this is a heavily conservative suburb, so some of these little beauty queens were coming to class in a full face of make-up and slathered in perfume in third grade), going to all night co-ed parties, and girls calling boys (I was shocked the first time this happened…third grade. unbelieveable.) It’s a puzzler.

Teresa,For the record, publicizing addresses and phone numbers of those with whom one disagrees is not something I support in the least. I will eventually check out your links, and I hope they link me to the posting of the addresses so I can discern the details from both sides. Certainly on the surface it is without a doubt to be condemned, but I’ll wait to see if there’s more to the story. As I said earlier, I’ve often found liberal sources routinely ommitting important details that change the tenor and tone of the story. I’ve seen Greenwald corrected for just such ommissions on more than one occasion. So if the piece is long, it’s likely to be a lot longer for me as I work to see if they’re not blowing smoke. As to being corrected by an atheist, I have no problem if their correction is accurate and, uh, correct. I will say again that it is illegal for a school to force kids to pray and the ACLU would certainly sue the school, but religious defenders such as ACLJ and Thomas Moore Center would not fight it. They are only concerned with unConsitutional prohibitions or misapplied restrictions. I agree with your last. It is puzzling. My thirteen yr old daughter couldn’t wait to get through health classes. She wanted nothing to do with the whole concept and still doesn’t. She had no patience for the giggles and jokes from the boys. At the same time, I have a niece, now in high school, who has always acted as if she couldn’t wait. She’s been interested in boys since grammar school. I don’t mean to say that non-believers don’t share many of the same moral standards as a rule. But most of those standards are simply Christian with the “Christian” whited out. My “Thou shalt not murder” was just to use as an easy to understand example of the point I’m trying to make. It’s not that non-Christians don’t share that belief, it’s that if everyone did, the world would benefit and laws restricting such a thing would be unnecessary. But for the sake of my point, it was an obvious example. Christian teachings on sexuality are less obvious, but the benefits to society by adhering to those teachings are every bit as beneficial. So I used murder in my example.

Here is a site that has a screen shot of the Stop the ACLU page announcing their policy, and singling out the Dobrich family.http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006/07/staclu-pogrom-is-resounding-success.html#linksRegarding your assertion that values shared by Christians and non-Christians alike are simple “Christian with the Christian whited out”……well, I don’t get that, as the basic values most people can agree on exsisted before Christ, and before Christianity…so they are human values…not particular or special to Christianity. Many of our modern values that are generally accepted such as women no longer being treated as property, or the immorality of slavery have no basis in the Bible, and are inconsistant with traditional Christianity. Many forms of Christianity promote useful values, and some of them avoid promoting terrible values…but I’ve seen nothing about Christianity that shows it to be an exceptional vehicle for values of any kind. Though it has proven to be useful and beneficial to some individuals, it’s track record as a salvation for civilizations and societies has been rather poor.Generally, the people who claim that it is are able to do so only by pointing out the flaws of non-Christians, promoting the virtuouos behavior of Christians, and excusing, denying or dismissing the transgressions of Christians. That’s not honest, and it doesn’t persuade me that Christianity deserves a special place in society above any other value system.What I have seen is that the special place of privilage that Christianity has in our society has given cover to abuses that, while they don’t currently approach those of other countries both Christian and non-Christian…are certainly things that I am willing to accept. These abuses range from constant, small daily ones, to life-altering and life-ending ones. This is why I don’t agree that Christianity should have a more privilaged place in our society than any other belief system, and it is best left in the private sphere where it’s benefits can be enjoyed by individuals as they see fit, and society can be protected from it’s detriments.I guess I’ll have to accept our disagreement on this point. But thanks for the conversation.

I couldn’t say one way or the other whether there is more sexual promiscuity these days among teens or not. Because the fact is, when I was in junior high and high school I was the only, I repeat – ONLY girl in my little group of friends who wasn’t having sex. Even my church girlfriends were having it. They had unwed mother’s homes in those days where they sent bad girls who got pregnant. It was all hush hush and swept under the rug, never to be lifted up again. Girls would disappear for a few months “staying with out of town relatives” or some such arrangement, then come back as if nothing had happened. But there were always whispers, just nobody talked about it much at loud.

First, I want to echo Teresa’s compliment. Marshall has handled a variety of comments – some of them, like mine, quite long – with both patience and thoroughness. I suppose I haven’t really stopped and remembered that all of us here are being critical, and so it might just be a bit difficult to keep one’s points in mind as one addresses different comments. Many kudos, Marshall.Second, I can only speak for myself, so I will. I think all of us – Dan, Marty, Teresa, myself, and you Marshall – are all correct to an extent in our perspectives. The reason I say this is that we all show our concern; it is a question of emphasis – what do we think is important? I do think the whole “moral relativism” tag that gets put on people is wrong, though, and Dan is quite correct. If we were all real relativists, there would be nothing to argue about.My last word, except for what I am about to write at my blog.